Someone — OK, a Graham staffer — brought this to my attention this morning:
September 26, 2007
Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants
By KEN BELSON and JILL P. CAPUZZO
RIVERSIDE, N.J., Sept. 25 — A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.
Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated.
The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town’s already tight budget. Suddenly, many people — including some who originally favored the law — started having second thoughts.
So last week, the town rescinded the ordinance, joining a small but growing list of municipalities nationwide that have begun rethinking such laws as their legal and economic consequences have become clearer…
That’s sort of a two-edged story, really. It supports my, and Sen. Graham‘s position, by suggesting that our economy would suffer if you just boot the illegals out. But part of the problem is manufactured by the ACLU. And I don’t believe you should avoid a certain policy position because somebody might sue you; to me that’s a poor argument.
As to the merits of the lawsuits — well, I don’t know, because the story doesn’t address WHY they have succeeded in court. I don’t know the grounds.
Related Posts
How was the problem started by the ACLU? They may have assisted with bringing the suit, but the judge found it to have merit. Otherwise the ACLU would have had their suits tossed out. It seems to me that the person’s denying others their rights were the ones who started the problem.
What I mean, Karen, is that the story told of two problems that arose from the departure of the aliens. One was a natural consequence — the pain to the businesses.
The other came from lawsuits, which is not indicative of an inherent problem with such a policy. By that I mean that ANYBODY can sue about ANYTHING. Their case may have merit; it may not. I was unable to tell from this story on what basis the courts ruled as they did. Was it a constitutional issue? Was it on a technicality? Was it on a point that was peripheral to the policy decision? I have no idea.
A lawsuit is not an automatic consequence of anything. Parties decide freely whether they will sue or not. In this case, the ACLU did.
Are you seriously saying that we need illegal immigrants to keep businesses open? The businesses went to where the people were located, not the other way around. It’s like the drug dealers who have to find a new street corner when the police start putting the buyers in jail.
Why don’t we just release prisoners from jail so they can keep the hair salons and barbershops in business? Same concept.
Lindsey Graham (the lawyer) apparently has no respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold.